Jenk

I've started using asciidoc[0] and find it much more friendly because it is both better specified and flexible.

[0]: https://asciidoc.org/

I use plugin for FF (also chrome) that does this automatically. Can be configured to use any nitter instance: https://github.com/SimonBrazell/nitter-redirect

> I'd be shocked if there was a ZMK keyboard out there you couldn't flash.

MoErgo Glove80 is ZMK based. Extensible and flashable, too.

Probably a confusion of what that percentage is - whilst the monthly figure is as you have said, the accumulated/aggregate percentage of inflation over those two years is probably what GP refers to as 18%

In about the same time frame someone offered me 16,000 BTC for a mediocre graphics card I put on a listing. (I turned it down.)

    git help -a

lists all available commands.

It's important to note that the git binaries are (usually) both client and server - by design what with the hole "decentralised" thing.

So the default package will let you run server functionality such as the http-backend (which allows the machine you run it on to serve http(s):// schema repositories)

Keep it with the "but iPhones get all smudgey from my fingers, yuck" bookmarks.

This reads like a chapter out of my own biography.

This experience started on a self-hosted SVN + Hudson server (not VM). That server was repurposed to run ESX that the hosted the VM of its former self. Which felt a bit pointless.

Then we moved to git from svn but kept everything else the same. Had groovy scripts coming out of our build and deployment ears. shudder

I didn't expect to laugh but the screenshot (i.e., pure white rectangle) has tickled me.

Apologies, I didn't mean breaking TLS itself but breaking the trust that said protocol is providing.

Thanks for explaining.

My niaive understanding is that all certs contain (at least) the id/thumb of their issuing cert - If I am not mistaken, how is TLS broken by sending only the leaf and/or intermediary if the client is able to correctly identify the issuer as known/trusted via this thumb print?

SmallTalk has the left-to-right for everything principle because everything is message passing and "operators" are just binary (as in two argument) messages which catches many out.

    2 - 1 * 5

will return 5, while many would expect -3. You must apply parentheses if you want a precedence other than ltr.

From zero tests in 2019, to some 59k+ tests in just 4-5 years. On an established, significantly large product no less. Yeah I have zero faith in the quality and efficacy of those tests.

Hey I didn't say Google were any better.

I am also posting these remarks with a tongue in cheek. I am sure they (any) do liaise with government agencies when requested but not that they are primarily intel branches with a retail mask.

> Quite curious why it hasn’t been sued yet by the DOJ.

A single corporation owns the proprietary OS running what must be upwards of 80% of the world's corporate and government workstations that is known to be laden with copious amounts of telemetry and privacy invading logging is probably quite an attractive partner to the various TLOs of the US government.

I read some fan-fic conspiracy theory that MS is actually a facade for an intelligence agency a couple of decades ago. Getting less and less certain about the weight of "theory" these days.

Par for the microsoft product course. They are the 80%ers - all of their products achieve ~80% of their potential.

Some might argue that's just being prudent and shipping only the minimally marketable features but my riposte to that is the layer upon layer of shit they continue to apply whilst ignoring broken core features on many of their products.

> You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations

Forming an argument with the unfounded pretense that everyone is obliged to donate is somehow not claiming everyone is obliged to donate. Yet somehow I'm the disingenious one.

The expectation (that every singke viewer is obliged) is the recent fad, not the concept of donations. Are you deliberately obtuse or just incapable of distinguishing the two?

Not irrelevant nor a stawman, but does show the fault in your argument. Somewhat ironic of you to accuse that given the above. Oh well.

It makes all the sense. There is no subscription fee. There is no premise nor expectation of payment by the viewer. They get paid as a consequence of people viewing, ahead of time by sponsors, or as a payment in lieu by ad monetisation - or if lucky/good enough voluntary donations. Keyword voluntary. This expectation of donorship is a recent fad that is just banal and asinine at the same time.

By extension do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised because they have incurred the expense to buy the ad space and/or sponsorship?

To be fair/devil's advocate - "GUI" has been phonetically pronounced as "Gooey" by many people since inception, thus I think it is entirely reasonable for them to have adopted this name entirely unaware of the eponymous python library.

YouTube pays contributors a tiny fraction of their ad revenue in order to make more ad revenue. Sponsors pay them to include their products.

So yes, it does hold up to scrutiny. YouTube and sponsors are paying them. I am not obligated, ethically or otherwise, to watch adverts.

None. They put their content out on a platform that does not require my contribution. YouTube was, and is, never about "compensating content creators" and I am under no obligation to do so, but they get paid anyway. Some get paid to add a segment from a sponsor, I choose to automatically skip that segment, but they still got paid for putting it in anyway.

Would I watch it if they were behind a subscription fee? No.

The HR bot use case is very close to my domain - literally one of the teams reporting to me are maintaining the HR bot for a large enterprise - and it is a legal minefield. Whatever the bot provides as a response could be legally binding, according to legal. Examples of the kind of prompts we get in a many-thousands sized org:

- What are my p/maternity entitlements?

- When will I be promoted?

- What will the bonus pool be this year?

- What will happen to me if my boss finds out I have been slacking off?

and many more examples of prompts that HR/legal simply will not accept a vague, or worse: incorrect, response to. Each of those types of questions require specific and considerate knowledge that LLMs simply cannot produce.

Thanks, updated the link.

It is a practice called anchoring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect

Apprenticeships are open to 16 year-olds - in much more dangerous professions. Metalworking, construction, mining, etc.

And of course if it is deemed too dangerous for them to join any of these professions, your local military recruitment center, acceptong applicants aged 16 and above, is right this way...

Because that's how the numbers are arranged on the clock face/sun dial

TV stations use this system. A schedule for any given day can be up to 27 hours iirc.

> Most people can’t

Bias. Most people can. I'm in the UK, too.